PREFACE BY THE CO-CHAIRMEN

As we reach the end of ten years
in the life of ARCIC-II it may be opportune to recall the words of Pope
John Paul II and Archbishop Robert Runcie in their Common Declaration at
Canterbury in May, 1982:

The new International
Commission is to continue the work already begun; to examine, especially
in the light of our respective judgements on the Final Report, the
outstanding doctrinal differences which still separate us, with a view
to their eventual resolution; to study all that hinders the mutual
recognition of the ministries of our Communions, and to recommend what
practical steps will be necessary when, on the basis of our unity in
faith, we are able to proceed to the restoration of full communion. We
are well aware that this new Commission's task will not be easy but we
are encouraged by our reliance on the grace of God and by all that we
have seen of the power of that grace in the ecumenical movement of our
time.

We repeat these words in order
to assure both our Communions that the work of the Commission, however
long or difficult it may be, must continue and is continuing. Among the
many international dialogues, bilateral and multilateral, between
divided Christians, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission
is the first to have directly attempted the subject of morals. We have
prepared this statement in response to requests from the authorities of
both our Communions. These requests have given voice to a widespread
belief that Anglicans and Roman Catholics are as much, if not more,
divided on questions or morals as of doctrine. This belief in turn
reflects the profound and true conviction that authentic Christian unity
is as much a matter of life as of faith. Those who share one faith in
Christ will share one life in Christ. Hence the title of this statement:
Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church.

The theme of this statement
was already adumbrated in our previous work on the Church as Communion. In
describing the constitutive elements essential for the visible
communion of the Church, we wrote: Also constitutive of life in
communion is acceptance of the same basic moral values, the sharing of
the same vision of humanity created in the image of God and recreated in
Christ, and the common confession of the one hope in the final
consummation of the Kingdom of God (44, 45).

As Christians we seek a
common life not for our own sakes only, but for the glory of God and the
good of humankind. In the face of the world around us, the name of God
is profaned whenever those who call themselves Christians show
themselves divided in their witness to the objective moral demands which
arise from our life in Christ. Our search for communion and unity in
morals as in faith is therefore a form of the Lord's own prayer to his
Father:

Hallowed be thy name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

+ Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
+ Mark Santer

A) INTRODUCTION

1. There is a popular and
widespread belief that the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions are
divided most sharply by their moral teaching. Careful consideration has
persuaded the Commission that, despite existing disagreement in certain
areas of practical and pastoral judgment, Anglicans and Roman Catholics
derive from the Scriptures and Tradition the same controlling vision of
the nature and destiny of humanity and share the same fundamental moral
values. This substantial area of common conviction calls for shared
witness, since both Communions proclaim the same Gospel and acknowledge
the same injunction to mission and service. A disproportionate emphasis
on particular disagreements blurs this important truth and can provoke a
sense of alienation. There is already a notable convergence between the
two Communions in the witness they give, for example, on war and peace,
euthanasia, freedom and justice, but exaggeration of outstanding
differences makes this shared witness — a witness which could give
direction to a world in danger of losing its way — more difficult to
sustain and at the same time hinders its further development. Such a
shared witness is, in today's society, urgent. It is also, we believe,
possible. The widespread assumption, therefore, that differences of
teaching on certain particular moral issues signify an irreconcilable
divergence of understanding, and therefore present an insurmountable
obstacle to shared witness, needs to be countered. Even on those
particular issues where disagreement exists, Anglicans and Roman
Catholics, we shall argue, share a common perspective and acknowledge
the same underlying values. This being so, we question whether the
limited disagreement, serious as it is, is itself sufficient to justify
a continuing breach of communion.

2. In presenting this statement
on morals, we are responding, not simply to popular concern, but also to
requests from the authorities of both Communions. In the past,
ecumenical dialogue has concentrated on matters of doctrine. These are
of primary importance and work here still remains to be done. However,
the Gospel we proclaim cannot be divorced from the life we live.
Questions of doctrine and of morals are closely inter-connected, and
differences in the one area may reflect differences in the other. Common
to both is the matter of authority and the manner of its exercise.
Although we shall not here be addressing the issue of authority
directly, nevertheless we hope that an understanding of the relationship
between freedom and authority in the moral life may contribute to our
understanding of their relationship in the life of the Church.

3. In what follows we shall
attempt to display the basis and shape of Christian moral teaching and
to show that both our Communions apprehend it in the same light. We
begin by reaffirming our common faith that the life to which God,
through Jesus Christ, calls women and men is nothing less than
participation in the divine life, and we spell out some of the
characteristics and implications of our shared vision of life in Christ.
We go on to remind ourselves of our common heritage and of the living
tradition through which both Communions have sought to develop a
faithful and appropriate response to the good news of the Gospel. Next
we review the ways in which this tradition has diverged since the break
in communion, at the same time drawing attention to signs of a new
convergence, not least in our emphasis on the common good. We fasten
upon the two particular issues of marriage after divorce and
contraception — issues upon which the two Communions have expressed
their disagreement in official documents and pastoral practice — in
order to determine as precisely as we can the nature and extent of our
moral disagreement and to relate it to our continuing agreement on
fundamental values. In our last section we return to the theme of
communion and, in the light of what has gone before, show how communion
determines both the structure of the moral order and the method of the
Church's discernment and response. Finally, we re-affirm our belief that
differences and disagreements are exacerbated by a continuing breach of
communion, and that integrity of moral response itself requires a
movement towards full communion. We conclude by suggesting steps by
which we may move forward together along this path to the greater glory
of God and the well-being of God's world.

B) SHARED VISION

4. The Christian life is a
response in the Holy Spirit to God's self-giving in Jesus Christ. To
this gift of himself in the incarnation, and to this participation in the
divine life, the Scriptures bear witness (cf. 1 Jn 1:1-3; 2 Pt 1:3-4).
Made in the image of God (cf. Gen 1:27), and part of God's good creation
(cf. Gen 1:31), women and men are called to grow into the likeness of
God, in communion with Christ and with one another. What has been
entrusted to us through the incarnation and the Christian tradition is a
vision of God. This vision of God in the face of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Cor
4:6; compare Gen 1:3) is at the same time a vision of humanity renewed
and fulfilled. Life in Christ is the gift and promise of new creation
(cf. 2 Cor 5:17), the ground of community, and the pattern of social
relations. It is the shared inheritance of the Church and the hope of
every believer.

5. God creates human beings with
the dignity of persons in community, calls them to a life of
responsibility and freedom, and endows them with the hope of happiness.
As children of God, our true freedom is to be found in God's service,
and our true happiness in faithful and loving response to God's love and
grace. We are created to glorify and enjoy God, and our hearts continue
to be restless until they find in God their rest and fulfilment.

6. The true goal of the moral
life is the flourishing and fulfilment of that humanity for which all
men and women have been created. The fundamental moral question,
therefore, is not What ought we to do?, but What kind of persons are
we called to become? For children of God, moral obedience is nourished
by the hope of becoming like God (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-3).

7. True personhood has its
origins and roots in the life and love of God. The mystery of the divine
life cannot be captured by human thought and language, but in speaking
of God as Trinity in Unity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we are
affirming that the Being of God is a unity of self-communicating and
interdependent relationships. Human persons, therefore, made in this
image, and called to participate in the life of God, may not exercise a
freedom that claims to be independent, wilful and self-seeking. Such a
use of freedom is a distortion of their God-given humanity. It is sin.
The freedom that is properly theirs is a freedom of responsiveness and
interdependence. They are created for communion, and communion involves
responsibility, in relation to society and nature as well as to God.

8. Ignorance and sin have led to
the misuse and corruption of human freedom and to delusive ideas of
human fulfilment. But God has been faithful to his eternal purposes of
love and, through the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ, offers to
human beings participation in a new creation, recalling them to their
true freedom and fulfilment. As God remains faithful and free, so those
who are in Christ are called to be faithful and free, and to share in
God's creative and redemptive work for the whole of creation.

9. The new life in Christ is for
the glorification of God. Living in communion with Christ, the Church is
called to make Christ's words its own: I have glorified you on earth
(cf. Jn 17:4). The new life has also been entrusted to the Church for
the good of the whole world (cf.
Church as Communion, 18). This life is
for everyone and embraces everyone. In seeking the common good,
therefore, the Church listens and speaks, not only to the faithful, but
also to women and men of good will everywhere. Despite the ambiguities
and evils in the world, and despite the sin that has distorted human
life, the Church affirms the original goodness of creation and discerns
signs and contours of an order that continues to reflect the wisdom and
goodness of the Creator. Nor has sin deprived human beings of all
perception of this order. It is generally recognized, for example, that
torture is intrinsically wrong, and that the integration of sexual
instincts and affections into a lifelong relationship of married love
and loyalty constitutes a uniquely significant form of human flourishing
and fulfilment. Reflection on experience of what makes human beings,
singly and together, truly human gives rise to a natural morality,
sometimes interpreted in terms of natural justice or natural law, to
which a general appeal for guidance can be made. In Jesus Christ this
natural morality is not denied. Rather, it is renewed, transfigured and
perfected, since Christ is the true and perfect image of God.

10. Christian morality is one
aspect of the life in Christ which shapes the tradition of the Church, a
tradition which is also shaped by the community which carries it.
Christian morality is the fruit of faith in God's Word, the grace of the
sacraments, and the appropriation, in a life of forgiveness, of the
gifts of the Spirit for work in God's service. It manifests itself in
the practical teaching and pastoral care of the Church and is the
outward expression of that continual turning to God whereby forgiven
sinners grow up together into Christ and into the mature humanity of
which Christ is the measure and fullness (cf. Eph 4:13). At its deepest
level, the response of the Church to the offer of new life in Christ
possesses an unchanging identity from age to age and place to place. In
its particular teachings, however, it takes account of changing
circumstances and needs, and in situations of unusual ambiguity and
perplexity it seeks to combine new insight and discernment with an
underlying continuity and consistency.

11. Approached in this light the
fundamental questions with which a Christian morality engages are such
as these:

— What are persons called to be,
as individuals and as members one of another in the human family?

—
What constitutes human dignity, and what are the social as well as the
individual dimensions of human dignity and responsibility?

— How does divine forgiveness
and grace engage with human finitude, fragility and sin in the
realization of human happiness?

— How are the conditions and
structures of human life related to the goal of human fulfilment?

— What are the implications of
the creatureliness which human beings share with the rest of the natural
world?

At this fundamental level of
inquiry and concern, we believe, our two Communions share a common
vision and understanding. To affirm our agreement here will prove a
significant step forward towards the recovery of full communion. It will
put in proper perspective any disagreement that may continue to exist in
official teaching and pastoral practice on particular issues, such as
divorce and contraception. The crisis of the modern world is more than a
crisis of sexual ethics. At stake is our humanity itself.

C) COMMON HERITAGE

1. A shared tradition

12. Anglicans and Roman
Catholics are conscious that their respective traditions, rooted in a
shared vision, stem from a common heritage, which in spite of stress and
strain, within and without, shaped the Church's life for some 1500
years. Drawing upon the faith of Israel, this common heritage springs
from the conversion of the disciples to faith in Jesus Christ and their
mission to share that faith with others. Fullness of life in Christ in
the kingdom of God is its goal. It is also the norm by which the
tradition in all its varied manifestations is to be judged. Any
manifestation that no longer has the power to nurture and sustain the
new life in Christ is thereby shown to be corrupt. Anglicans and Roman
Catholics firmly believe that their respective traditions continue to
nourish and support them in their daily discipleship, but they are aware
of the impairment to their common heritage caused by the breach in their
communion, and they look forward to the time when both traditions will
again flow together for their mutual enrichment and for their common
witness and service to the world.

13. The shared tradition was
richly woven from many strands. These include faith in God, Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, publicly professed in baptism; a common life, founded
on love, centered in eucharistic prayer and worship, expressed in
service; the teaching and nourishment of the Scriptures; an ordered
leadership, entrusted with guarding and guiding the tradition through
the conflicts of history; a sense of discipleship, manifested in the
lives of the saints and acknowledged by devotion and piety; the
proscription of deeds that undermine the values of the Gospel and
threaten to destroy the new life in Christ; ways of reconciliation, by
which sinners may be brought back into communion with God and with one
another. At the same time the tradition drew upon the inherited wisdom
and culture of the world in which it was embedded.

14. This common tradition
carried with it a missionary imperative — a call to preach the Gospel,
to live the life of the Gospel in the world, and to work out a faithful
and fruitful response to the Gospel in encounter with different
cultures. Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics have understood the
missionary task in this way, and both have been eager to fulfil the
claims of their earthly citizenship (cf. Rm 13:4-5), while remembering
that they are citizens of heaven (cf. Phil 3:20). They have attempted to
carry out Christ's missionary injunction accordingly, though sometimes
they have interpreted their involvement in the cultural life of the
world in very different ways. In their engagement with culture they have
been led to give careful thought to the practical expression of the new
life in Christ and to provide specific teaching on some of its moral and
social aspects.

15. This openness to the world,
which has characterized both our traditions, has shaped the pattern of
life which these traditions have sustained. It is not the life of an
inwardly pious and self-regarding group, withdrawn from the world and
its conflicts. It is, rather, a life to be lived out amidst the
ambiguities of the world. Yet it is also a pilgrim life which, while
seeking the welfare of the world, has a destiny which transcends the
present age. Admittedly, this involvement with the world has from time
to time led the Church into compromise and alliance with corrupt
principalities and powers. At other times, however, cooperation with
secular authorities has borne good fruit, and the conviction that the
Church is called to live in the world and to work for the salvation of
the world has remained strong. Thus, while both our Communions retain
painful memories of occasions of betrayal and sin, both put their trust,
not in human strength, but in the saving power of God.

16. Both our traditions draw
their vision from the Scriptures. To the Scriptures, therefore, we now
turn, to discover the origins of our common heritage in the Gospel of
Jesus Christ and the faithful response of the Christian community.

2. The Pattern of our Life in Christ

17. The good news of the Gospel
is the coming of the kingdom of God (cf. Mk 1: 15), the redemption of
the world by our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Gal 4:4-5), the forgiveness of
sins and new life in the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38), and the hope of glory
(cf. Col 1:27).

18. The redemption won by Jesus
Christ carries with it the promise of a new life of freedom from the
domination of sin (cf. Rm 6:18). Through his dying on the cross Christ
has overcome the powers of darkness and death, and through his rising
again from the dead he has opened the gates of eternal life (cf. Heb
10:19-22). No longer are men and women alienated from God and from one
another, enslaved by sin, abandoned to despair and destined to
destruction (cf. Eph 2:1-12). The entail of sin has been broken and
humanity set free — free to enter upon the liberty and splendor of the
children of God (cf. Rm 6:23; 8:2l).

19. The liberty promised to the
children of God is nothing less than participation, with Christ and
through the Holy Spirit, in the life of God. The gift of the Spirit is
the pledge and first instalment of the coming kingdom (cf. 2 Cor
1:21-22). Patterned according to Christ, the Wisdom of God, and
empowered by the Holy Spirit of God, the Church is called, not only to
proclaim God's kingdom, but also to be the sign and first-fruits of its
coming. The unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity of the Church
derive their meaning and reality from the meaning and reality of God's
kingdom. They reflect the fullness of the life of God. They are signs of
the universal love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the love poured
out upon the whole creation. Hence the life of the Church, the body of
Christ, the community of the Holy Spirit, is rooted and grounded in the
eternal life and love of God.

20. It is this patterning power
of the kingdom that gives the Church its distinctive character (cf. Rm
14:17). The new humanity, which the Gospel makes possible, is present in
the community of those who already belonging to the new world
inaugurated by the resurrection, live according to the law of the Spirit
written in their hearts (cf. Jer 31:33). However, the Church has always
to become more fully what its title-deeds proclaim it to be. It exists
in the between-time, between the coming of Christ in history and his
coming again as the Christ of glory. In so far as it remains in the
world, it too has to learn obedience to its living Lord, and to work out
in its own life in community the matter and manner of its discipleship.

21. The earliest disciples
devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the
breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42). In the portrayal of this
communion the disciples were said to have had all things in common,
selling their possessions and sharing their goods as any had need
(Acts 2:44-45). This striking example of community care and concern has,
down the ages, prompted a critique of every form of society based on the
unbridled pursuit of wealth and power. It has challenged Christians to
use their gifts and resources to equip God's people for the work of
service (cf. Eph 4:12). Its deep significance is disclosed in the claim
that the whole company of believers was of one heart and soul... and
everything they owned was held in common (Acts 4:32).

22. This communion in heart and
soul is inspired by the Holy Spirit and manifested in a life patterned
according to the mind of Christ. As Paul puts it, if there is any
encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the
Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same
mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind... that
same mind which was in Christ Jesus (Phil 2:1-2,5). The distinctive
mark of the mind of Christ, Paul goes on to explain, is humble obedience
and self-emptying love (cf. Phil 2:7-8).

3. The Mind of Christ

23. The mind of Christ remains
in the Church through the presence of the Paraclete/Spirit (cf. Jn
14:26). It is mediated through the remembered teaching of Jesus and the
prayerful discernment of the body of Christ and its members, and gives
shape and direction to the practical life of the Christian community.
This teaching is expressed in Jesus' summary of the Law in the twofold
commandment of love (cf. Mt 22:37-40), and spelled out in the Sermon on
the Mount, especially the Beatitudes and the reinterpretation of the
Commandments (cf. Mt 5:3-12, 21-48). It has a dual focus in the radical
command Love your enemies (cf. Mt 5:43) and the new commandment Love
one another as I have loved you (cf. Jn 13:34). The mind of Christ, so
disclosed, determines the character of renewed humanity, forms the
pattern of Christian obedience, and establishes the universe of shared
moral values. In this important sense there is a givenness within the
Christian response, which the changes of history and culture cannot
impair.

24. The mind of Christ, who is
the Way as well as the Truth and the Life (cf. Jn 14:6; Mt 7:14), also
shapes the process by which Christians approach the challenge of new and
complex moral and pastoral problems. Because they worship the same God
and follow the same Lord, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit they
approach these problems with similar resources and concerns. The method
of arriving at practical decisions may vary, but underlying any
differences of method there is a shared understanding of the need to use
practical reason in interpreting the witness of the Scriptures,
tradition and experience.

25. The mind of Christ also
exposes the continuing threat of sin — sins of ignorance and neglect as
well as deliberate sins. A knowing and willing disregard of the pattern
of life which Christ sets before us is deliberate sin. But people can
also drift into sin without any clear perception of what they are doing.
Distorted structures of common life prompt a sinful response. Habits of
sin then dull the conscience, until sinners come to prefer darkness to
light. So solidarity in sin threatens to disrupt the fellowship of the
Holy Spirit.

26. In Christ freedom and order
are mutually supportive. The obedience of Christian discipleship is
neither the mechanical application of regulation and rule, nor the
wilful decision of arbitrary choice. In the freedom of a faithful and
obedient response the disciples of Christ seek to discern Christ's mind
rather than express their own. In exercising its authority to remit and
retain sins (cf. Jn 20:23), the Church has a twofold task: of guarding
against the power of sin to destroy the life of the community, and of
fostering the freedom of its members to discern what is good and
acceptable and perfect (Rm 12:2).

4. Growing up into Christ

27. The salvation which God has
secured for us once and for all, through the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ, he has now to secure in us and with us through the power
of the Holy Spirit. We have to become what, in Christ, we already are.
We have to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ
(Eph 4:15). We have to work out (our) own salvation with fear and
trembling; for God is at work in (us), both to will and to work for his
good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).

28. The lived response of the
Church to the grace of God develops its own shape and character. The
pattern of this response is fashioned according to the mind of Christ;
the raw material is the stuff of our everyday world. In Johannine
language, believers are still in the world, but are not of the world
(cf. Jn 17:13-14). In Pauline language, they continue to live in the
body (2 Cor 5:6), but no longer in the flesh (Rm 8:9). Christians are
to continue in their secular roles and relationships according to the
accepted social codes of behavior, but are to do so as in the Lord
(cf. Eph 5:21-6:11; Col 3:18-4: 1). Their new intention and motivation,
while affirming the need for these social structures, contain the seeds
of radical critique and reappraisal.

29. The fidelity of the Church
to the mind of Christ involves a continuing process of listening,
learning, reflecting and teaching. In this process every member of the
community has a part to play. Each person learns to reflect and act
according to conscience. Conscience is informed by, and informs, the
tradition and teaching of the community. Learning and teaching are a
shared discipline, in which the faithful seek to discover together what
obedience to the gospel of grace and the law of love entails amidst the
moral perplexities of the world. It is this task of discovering the
moral implications of the Gospel which calls for continuing discernment,
constant repentance and renewal of the mind (Rm 12:2), so that through
discernment and response men and women may become what in Christ they
already are.

30. As part of its missionary
imperative and pastoral care, the Church has not only to hand on from
generation to generation its understanding of life in Christ, but also
from time to time to determine how best to reconcile and support those
members of the community who have, for whatever reason, failed to live
up to its moral demands. Its aim is twofold: on the one hand, both to
minimize the harm done by their falling away and to maintain the
integrity of the community; and on the other, to restore the sinner to
the life of grace in the fellowship of the Church.

5. Discerning the mind of Christ

31. Christian morality is an
authentic expression of the new life lived in the power of the Holy
Spirit and fashioned according to the mind of Christ. In the tradition
common to both our Communions, discerning the mind of Christ is a
patient and continuing process of prayer and reflection. At its heart is
the turning of the sinner to God, sacramentally enacted in baptism and
renewed through participation in the sacramental life of the Church,
meditation on the scriptures, and a life of daily discipleship. The
process unfolds through the formation of a character, individual and
communal, that reflects the likeness of Christ and embodies the virtues
of a true humanity (cf. Gal 5:19-24). At the same time shared values are
formulated in terms of principles and rules defining duties and
protecting rights. All this finds expression in the common life of the
Church as well as in its practical teaching and pastoral care.

32. The teaching developed in
this way is an essential element in the process by which individuals and
communities exercise their discernment on particular moral issues.
Holding in mind the teaching they have received, drawing upon their own
experience, and exploring the particularities of the issue that
confronts them, they have then to decide what action to take in these
circumstances and on this occasion. Such a decision is not only a matter
of deduction. Nor can it be taken in isolation. It also calls for
detailed and accurate assessment of the facts of the case, careful and
consistent reflection and, above all, sensitivity of insight inspired by
the Holy Spirit.

6. Continuity and Change

33. Guided by the Holy Spirit,
believer and believing community seek to discern the mind of Christ
amidst the changing circumstances of their own histories. Fidelity to
the Gospel, obedience to the mind of Christ, openness to the Holy Spirit
— these remain the source and strength of continuity. Where communities
have separated, traditions diverge; and it is only to be expected that a
difference of emphasis in moral judgment will also occur. Where there
has been an actual break in communion, this difference cannot but be the
more pronounced, giving rise to the impression, often mistaken, that
there is some fundamental disagreement of understanding and approach.

34. Moral discernment is a
demanding task both for the community and for the individual Christian.
The more complex the particular issue, the greater the room for
disagreement. Christians of different Communions are more likely to
agree on the character of the Christian life and the fundamental
Christian virtues and values. They are more likely to disagree on the
consequent rules of practice, particular moral judgments and pastoral
counsel.

35. In this chapter we have been
concerned to reaffirm the heritage which Anglicans and Roman Catholics
share together. We believe that the elements of this heritage provide
the basis for a common witness to the world. But since the Reformation
the traditions of our two Communions have diverged, and there are now
differences between them which we must acknowledge and face with honesty
and patience. Left unacknowledged, they remain a threat to any common
task we might undertake. Faced together with honesty and integrity, they
will, we believe, be seen at a deeper level to reflect different aspects
of a living whole.

D) PATHS DIVERGE

36. For some fifteen centuries
the Church in the West struggled to maintain a single, living tradition
of communion in worship, faith and practice. In the sixteenth century,
however, this web of shared experience was violently broken. Movements
for reform could no longer be contained within the one Communion. The
Roman Catholic Church and the Churches of the Reformation went their
different ways and fruits of shared communion were lost. It is in this
context of broken communion and diverging histories that the existing
differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on matters of morality
must be located if they are to be rightly understood.

37. These differences, we
believe, do not derive from disagreement on the sources of moral
authority or on fundamental moral values. Rather, they have arisen from
the different emphases which our two Communions have given to different
elements of the moral life. In particular, differences have occurred in
the ways in which each, in isolation from the other, has developed its
structures of authority and has come to exercise that authority in the
formation of moral judgment. These factors, we believe, have contributed
significantly to the differences that have arisen in a limited number of
important moral issues. We cannot, of course, hope to do justice to the
complex histories that have shaped our two Communions and given to each
its distinctive ethos. However, we wish to draw attention to two strands
in our histories which, for present purposes, are of special
significance: first, structures of government and the voice of the
laity; and secondly, processes of moral formation and individual
judgment.

1. Structures of government and the voice of the
laity

38. At the Reformation the
Church of England abjured papal supremacy, acknowledged the Sovereign as
its Supreme Governor (cf. Article 37), and adopted English as the
language of its liturgy (cf. Article 24). Thus the life of the church,
the culture of the nation and the law of the land were inextricably
combined. In particular, the lay voice was given, through Parliament, a
substantial measure of authority in the affairs of the church. With the
growth of the Anglican Communion as a world-wide body, patterns of
synodical government developed in which laity, clergy and bishops shared
the authority of government, the bishops retaining a special voice and
responsibility in safeguarding matters of doctrine and worship.

39. As the Anglican Communion
has spread, provinces independent of the Church of England have come
into being, each with its own history and culture. English culture has
become less and less of a common bond as other cultures have exercised
an increasing influence. Each province is responsible for the ordering
of its own life and has independent legislative and juridical authority;
yet each continues in communion with the Church of England and with one
another. Every ten years since 1867 the bishops of the Anglican
Communion have met together at Lambeth at the invitation of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom they continue to ascribe a primacy of
honor. The resolutions of their conferences have a high degree of
authority, but they do not become the official teaching of the
individual provinces until these have formally ratified them. In recent
times regular meetings of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, as
well as of the Anglican Consultative Council, in which laity, clergy and
bishops are all represented, have contributed to this network of
dispersed authority. Whether existing instruments of unity in the
Anglican Communion will prove adequate to the task of preserving full
communion between the provinces, as they develop their moral teaching in
a rapidly changing and deeply perplexing world, remains to be seen.

40. The Reformation and its
aftermath also had repercussions in the government of the Roman Catholic
Church. Some of the European rulers who maintained allegiance to Rome
found this relationship strained and frustrating, especially since, in
certain areas, the papacy also exercised temporal power. The church
reacted strongly, however, to any attempt by a secular power to arrogate
to itself prerogatives that it believed were rightfully its own. This
concern of the church to uphold its independence from the state,
together with its need to reaffirm and strengthen its unity in the face
of divisive forces, lent to the papal office a renewed significance, and
provided the context for the solemn definition of the first Vatican
Council which clarified the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome
and his infallibility.

41. A further development in the
Roman Catholic Church since Vatican I has clarified the teaching role of
the college of bishops in communion with its head, the Bishop of Rome.
Bishops are not only the chief teachers in their own dioceses, but they
also share responsibility for the teaching of the whole church. For
Roman Catholics, government and teaching continue to be the prerogative
of the episcopal office. Their experience has been that these structures
of authority have served the church well in maintaining a fundamental
unity of moral teaching.

42. There has also been a
significant development in the Roman Catholic Church in the ways by
which the laity participate in the discernment and articulation of the
church's faith. Lay persons have taken on new roles in liturgy,
catechesis and pastoral work, and have come to be involved with their
pastors in a variety of consultative and advisory bodies at parochial,
diocesan and national levels. This collaboration has been enhanced by
their involvement in theological education.

2. Processes of Moral Formation and Individual
Judgment

43. After the breakdown in
communion, Anglicans and Roman Catholics continued to develop, in
related but distinctive ways, their common tradition of moral theology
and its application by a process of casuistry to specific moral
problems. This process has its roots in the New Testament and the
writings of the Church Fathers. In the late Middle Ages, however,
certain widespread philosophical views diverted attention from the
controlling moral vision and concentrated on the obligations of the
individual will and the legality of particular acts. What was intended
to be a painstaking search for the will of God in the complex
circumstances of daily life ran the danger of becoming either meticulous
moralism or a means of minimizing the challenge of the Gospel.

44. Developments in Roman
Catholic moral theology after the Council of Trent were not altogether
free from this danger. In the 17th century papal authority countermanded
both rigorism and laxity. It sought to re-establish a vision of the
moral life which respected the demands of the Gospel while, at the same
time, acknowledging the costliness of discipleship and the frailties of
the human condition. During this and subsequent periods, moral theology
and spiritual theology were treated as two distinct disciplines, the
former tending to restrict itself to the minimal requirements of
Christian obedience. In the second half of the present century the Roman
Catholic Church, in its desire to set the moral life within a
comprehensive vision of life in the Spirit, has witnessed a renewal of
moral theology. There has been a return to the Scriptures as the central
source of moral insight. Older discussions, based on the natural law,
with the Scriptures cited solely for confirmation, have been integrated
into a more personalistic account of the moral life, which itself has
been grounded in the vocation of all human persons to participate in the
life of God. An emphasis on the community of persons has led to
significant developments, not only in the church's teaching on personal
relationships, but also in its teaching on the economic and social
implications of the common good.

45. The Anglican tradition of
moral theology has been varied and heterogeneous. In the 17th century
Anglican theologians of both catholic and puritan persuasion produced
comprehensive works of practical divinity. Drawing on the scholastic
tradition, and determined to hold together the moral and spiritual life,
they developed this tradition within a context of the Christian vocation
to personal holiness. Thus they rejected any approach to the moral life
that smacked of moral laxity, and mistrusted any casuistry that, in the
details of its analysis of the moral act, threatened to destroy an
integral spirit of genuine repentance and renewal. In subsequent
centuries the practice of casuistry fell largely into disuse, to be
replaced by teaching on Christian ethics. The aim of this discipline
was to set forth the ideal character and pattern of the Christian life
and so to prepare Christians for making their own decisions how best to
realise that ideal in their own circumstances. The present century has
seen a renewal among Anglicans of the discipline of moral theology,
sustained by a growing recognition of the need for systematic reflection
on the difficult moral issues raised by new technologies, the limits of
natural resources and the claims of the natural environment. In recent
times, in response to wide-spread appeals for guidance on issues of
public and social morality, representatives of Christian bodies and
other persons of good will have been brought together to study these
issues and to suggest how society might best respond to them for the
sake of the common good.

46. Anglicans and Roman
Catholics have both used a variety of means to strengthen Christian
discipleship in its moral dimension. These have included preaching,
regular use of catechisms, and public recitation of the Commandments. In
one matter of special significance, however, the Reformation and the
consequent Counter-Reformation moved the Church of England and the Roman
Catholic Church in different directions. The Reformers' emphasis on the
direct access of the sinner to the forgiving and sustaining Word of God
led Anglicans to reject the view that private confession before a priest
was obligatory, although they continued to maintain that it was a
wholesome means of grace, and made provision for it in the Book of
Common Prayer for those with an unquiet and sorely troubled conscience.
While many Anglicans value highly the practice of private confession of
sins, others believe with equal sincerity that it is for them unhelpful
and unnecessary. It is sufficient for themselves, they say, that the
Word of God, expressed in the Scriptures and appropriated in the power
of the Holy Spirit, speaks authoritatively to their conscience, offering
both assurance of forgiveness and practical guidance. For both those who
do, and for those who do not, confess their sins privately, general
confession and absolution by the priest remains an integral part of the
regular Anglican liturgy, a ministry designed to cover both individual
and corporate sin. Furthermore, Anglicans often turn to their pastors
and advisers, lay and ordained, for moral and spiritual counsel.

47. The Roman Catholic Church,
on the other hand, has continued to emphasize the sacrament of penance
and the obligation, for those conscious of serious sin, of confessing
their sins privately before a priest. Indeed, the renewal of private
confession was a major concern of the Council of Trent. Since Vatican II
the development of the ministry of forgiveness and healing has led to
new forms of sacramental reconciliation, both individual and communal.
For centuries the discipline of the confession of sins before a priest
has provided an important means of communicating the church's moral
teaching and nurturing the spiritual lives of penitents.

3. Moral Judgment and the Exercise of Authority

48. Reflection on the divergent
histories of our two Communions has shown that their shared concern to
respond obediently to God's Word and to foster the common good has
nevertheless resulted in differing emphases in the ways in which they
have nurtured Christian liberty and exercised Christian authority. Both
Communions recognize that liberty and authority are essentially
interdependent, and that the exercise of authority is for the protection
and nurture of liberty. It cannot be denied, however, that there is a
continuing temptation — a temptation which the continued separation of
our two Communions serves only to accentuate — to allow the exercise of
authority to lapse into authoritarianism and the exercise of liberty to
lapse into individualism.

49. All moral authority is
grounded in the goodness and will of God. Our two Communions are agreed
on this principle and on its implications. Both our Communions,
moreover, have developed their own structures and institutions for the
teaching ministry of the Church, by which the will of God is discerned
and its implications for the common good declared. Our Communions have
diverged, however, in their views of the ways in which authority is most
fruitfully exercised and the common good best promoted. Anglicans affirm
that authority needs to be dispersed rather than centralized, that the
common good is better served by allowing to individual Christians the
greatest possible liberty of informed moral judgment, and that therefore
official moral teaching should as far as possible be commendatory rather
than prescriptive and binding. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, have,
for the sake of the common good, emphasized the need for a central
authority to preserve unity and to give clear and binding teaching.

4. Differing Emphases, Shared Perspectives

50. In our conversations
together we have made two discoveries: first, that many of the
preconceptions that we brought with us concerning each other's
understanding of moral teaching and discipline were often little more
than caricatures; and secondly, that the differences which actually
exist between us appear in a new light when we consider them in their
origin and context.

51. Some of these differences
lend themselves to misperception and caricature. It is not true, for
instance, that Anglicans concern themselves solely with liberty, while
Roman Catholics concern themselves solely with law. It is not true that
the Roman Catholic Church has predetermined answers to every moral
question, while the Anglican Church has no answers at all. It is not
true that Roman Catholics always agree on moral issues, nor that
Anglicans never agree. It is not true that Anglican ethics is pragmatic
and unprincipled, while Roman Catholic moral theology is principled but
abstract. It is not true that Roman Catholics are always more careful of
the institution in their concern for the common good, while Anglicans
disregard the common good in their concern for the individual. It is not
true that Roman Catholic moral teaching is legalistic, while Anglican
moral teaching is utilitarian. Caricature, we may grant, is never
totally contrived; but caricature it remains. In fact, there is good
reason to hope that, if they can pray, think and act together, Anglicans
and Roman Catholics, by emphasizing different aspects of the moral life,
may come to complement and enrich each other's understanding and
practice of it.

52. Nevertheless, differences
there are and differences they remain. Both Anglicans and Roman
Catholics are accustomed to using the concept of law to give character
and form to the claims of morality. However, this concept is open to
more than one interpretation and use, so causing real and apparent
differences between our two traditions. For example, a notable feature
of established Roman Catholic moral teaching is its emphasis on the
absoluteness of some demands of the moral law and the existence of
certain prohibitions to which there are no exceptions. In these
instances, what is prohibited is intrinsically disordered and therefore
objectively wrong. Anglicans, on the other hand, while acknowledging the
same ultimate values, are not persuaded that the laws as we apprehend
them are necessarily absolute. In certain circumstances, they would
argue, it might be right to incorporate contextual and pastoral
considerations in the formulation of a moral law, on the grounds that
fundamental moral values are better served if the law sometimes takes
into account certain contingencies of nature and history and certain
disorders of the human condition. In so doing, they do not make the
clear-cut distinction, which Roman Catholics make, between canon law,
with its incorporation of contingent and prudential considerations, and
the moral law, which in its principles is absolute and universal. In
both our Communions, however, there are now signs of a shift away from a
reliance on the concept of law as the central category for providing
moral teaching. Its place is being taken by the concept of
persons-in-community. An ethic of response is preferred to an ethic
of obedience. In the desire to respond as fully as possible to the new
law of Christ, the primacy of persons is emphasized above the impersonalism of a system of law, thus avoiding the distortions of both
individualism and utilitarianism. The full significance of this shift of
emphasis is not yet clear, and its detailed implications have still to
be worked out. It should be emphasized, however, that whatever
differences there may be in the way in which they express the moral law,
both our traditions respect the consciences of persons in good faith.

53. We hope we have said enough
in this chapter to explain how a deeper understanding of our separated
histories has enabled us to appreciate better the real character of our
divergences, and has persuaded us that it has been our broken communion,
more than anything else, that has exacerbated our disagreements. In
recent times there has been a large measure of cross-fertilization
between our two traditions. Both our Communions, for example, have
shared in the renewal of biblical, historical and liturgical studies,
and both have participated in the ecumenical movement. Our separated
paths have once again begun to converge. It is in the conviction that we
also possess a shared vision of Christian discipleship and a common
approach to the moral life, that we take courage now to look directly at
our painful disagreement on two particular moral issues.

E) AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT

54. The two moral issues on
which the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions have expressed official
disagreement are: the marriage of a divorced person during the lifetime
of a former partner; and the permissible methods of controlling
conception. There are other issues concerning sexuality on which
Anglican and Roman Catholic attitudes and opinions appear to conflict,
especially abortion and the exercise of homosexual relations. These we
shall consider briefly at the end of this section; but because of the
official nature of the disagreement on the former two issues, we shall
concentrate on them.

1. Human Sexuality

55. Before considering the
points of disagreement, we need to emphasize the extent of our
agreement. Both our traditions affirm with Scripture that human
sexuality is part of God's good creation (cf. Gen 1:27; see further Gen
24; Ruth 4; the Song of Songs; Eph 5:21-32; etc.). Sexual differentiation
within the one human nature gives bodily expression to the vocation of
God's children to interpersonal communion. Human sexuality embraces the
whole range of bodily, imaginative, affective and spiritual experience.
It enters into a person's deepest character and relationships,
individual and social, and constitutes a fundamental mode of human
communication. It is ordered towards the gift of self and the creation
of life.

56. Sexual experience, isolated
from the vision of the full humanity to which God calls us, is
ambivalent. It can be as disruptive as it can be unitive, as destructive
as it can be creative. Christians have always known this to be so (cf.
Mt 5:28). They have therefore recognized the need to integrate sexuality
into an ordered pattern of life, which will nurture a person's spiritual
relationships both with other persons and with God. Such integration
calls for the exercise of the virtue traditionally termed chastity, a
virtue rooted in the spiritual significance of bodily existence (cf. 1
Thess 4:1-8; Gal 5:23; 1 Cor 6:9, 12-20).

57. Both our traditions offer
comparable accounts of chastity, which involves the ordering of the
sexual drive either towards marriage or in a life of celibacy. Chastity
does not signify the repression of sexual instincts and energies, but
their integration into a pattern of relationships in which a person may
find true happiness, fulfilment and salvation. Anglicans and Roman
Catholics agree that the new life in Christ calls for a radical break
with the sin of sexual self-centeredness, which leads inevitably to
individual and social disintegration. The New Testament is unequivocal
in its witness that the right ordering and use of sexual energy is an
essential aspect of life in Christ (cf. Mk 10:9; Jn 8:11; 1 Cor 7; 1 Pt
3:1-7; Heb 13:4), and this is reiterated throughout the common Christian
tradition, including the time since our two Communions diverged.

58. Human beings, male and
female, flourish as persons in community. Personal relationships have a
social as well as a private dimension. Sexual relationships are no
exception. They are bound up with issues of poverty and justice, the
equality and dignity of women and men, and the protection of children.
Both our traditions treat of human sexuality in the context of the
common good, and regard marriage and family life as institutions
divinely appointed for human well-being and happiness. It is in the
covenanted relationship between husband and wife that the physical
expression of sexuality finds its true fulfilment (cf. Gen 2:18-25), and
in the procreation and nurturing of children that the two persons
together share in the life-giving generosity of God (cf. Gen 1:27-29).

2. Marriage and Family

59. Neither of our two
traditions regards marriage as a human invention. On the contrary, both
see it as grounded by God in human nature and as a source of community,
social order and stability. Nevertheless, the institution of marriage
has found different expression in different cultures and at different
times. In our own time, for instance, we are becoming increasingly aware
that some forms, far from nurturing the dignity of persons, foster
oppression and domination, especially of women. However, despite the
distortions that have affected it, both our traditions continue to
discern and uphold in marriage a God-given pattern and significance.

60. Marriage gives rise to enduring obligations.
Personal integrity and social witness both require a life-long and
exclusive commitment, and the goods which marriage embodies include the
reciprocal love of husband and wife, and the procreation and raising of
children. When these realities are disregarded, a breakdown of family
life may ensue, carrying with it a heavy burden of misery and social
disintegration. The word obligation, however, is inadequate to express
the profound personal call inherent in the Christian understanding of
marriage. Both our traditions speak of marriage as a vocation: as a
vocation to holiness (Lambeth 1968, Resolution 22), as involving an
integral vision of vocation
(Familiaris Consortio, 32). When God calls women and men to the married
estate, and supports them in it, God's love for them is creative,
redemptive and sanctifying (cf. Lambeth, ibid.).

61. The mutual pact, or
covenant, made between the spouses (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 47-52, and
Final Report on the Theology of Marriage and its Application to Mixed
Marriages, 1975, 21) bears the mark of God's own abundant love (cf. Hos
2:19-21). Covenanted human love points beyond itself to the covenantal
love and fidelity of God and to God's will that marriage should be a
means of universal blessing and grace. Marriage, in the order of
creation, is both sign and reality of God's faithful love, and thus it
has a naturally sacramental dimension. Since it also points to the
saving love of God, embodied in Christ's love for the Church (cf. Eph
5:25), it is open to a still deeper sacramentality within the life and
communion of Christ's own Body.

62. So far, we believe, our
traditions agree. Further discussion, however, is needed on the ways in
which they interpret this sacramentality of marriage. The Roman Catholic
tradition, following the common tradition of the West, which was
officially promulgated by the Council of Florence in 1439, affirms that
Christian marriage is a sacrament in the order of redemption, the
natural sign of the human covenant having been raised by Christ to
become a sign of the irrevocable covenant between himself and his
Church. What was sacramental in the order of creation becomes a
sacrament of the Church in the order of redemption. When solemnized
between two baptized persons, marriage is an effective sign of redeeming
grace. Anglicans, while affirming the special significance of marriage
within the Body of Christ, emphasize a sacramentality of marriage that
transcends the boundaries of the Church. For many years in England after
the Reformation, marriages could be solemnized only in church. When
civil marriage became possible, Anglicans recognized such marriages,
too, as sacramental and graced by God, since the state of matrimony had
itself been sanctified by Christ by his presence at the marriage at Cana
of Galilee (cf. BCP Introduction to the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony,
1662). From these considerations it would appear that, in this context,
Anglicans tend to emphasize the breadth of God's grace in creation,
while Roman Catholics tend to emphasize the depth of God's grace in
Christ. These emphases should be seen as complementary. Ideally, they
belong together. They have, however, given rise to differing
understandings of the conditions under which the sacramentality of a
marriage is fulfilled.

63. The vision of marriage as a
fruitful, life-long covenant, full of the grace of God, is not always
sustained in the realities of life. Its very goodness, when corrupted by
human frailty, self-centredness and sin, gives rise to pain, despair and
tragedy, not only for the couple immediately involved in marital
difficulty or breakdown, but also for their children, the wider family
and the social order. Faced with such situations, the Church endeavours
to minister the grace and discipline of Christ himself. Anglicans and
Roman Catholics have both sought to act in obedience to the teaching of
Christ. However, in their separation their practice and pastoral
discipline came to differ and diverge. In order to elucidate the
significance of such differences and divergences we shall now turn to
the two issues on which disagreement has been officially voiced, namely,
marriage after divorce, and contraception.

3. Marriage After Divorce

64. Before the break in
communion in the 16th century, the Church in the West had come to derive
a doctrine of indissolubility from its interpretation of the teaching of
Jesus concerning marriage. The official Church teaching included two
affirmations: not only was it the case that the marriage bond ought not
to be dissolved; but it was also the case that it could not be
dissolved. At the Reformation, continental Protestant Reformers
interpreted the teaching of Jesus (cf. Mt 5:32; 19:9) differently, and
argued that divorce was permissible on grounds of adultery or desertion.
The Council of Trent, on the other hand, re-affirmed the teaching,
first, that the marriage bond could not be dissolved, even by adultery
and secondly, that neither partner, not even the innocent one, could
contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the other.

a) The Anglican Communion

65. The development of a
distinctive marriage discipline within Anglicanism can be understood
only in the context of the development of diverse civil jurisdictions.
This is true both of the Church of England and of other Anglican
provinces. At the time of the Reformation the Church of England passed
no formal resolution on marriage and divorce. It never officially
accepted the teaching of the continental Reformers but, despite attempts
to introduce an alternative discipline, held to the older belief and
practice. Revisions of Canon Law in 1597 and 1604 established no change
in teaching or discipline, although, in the centuries that followed,
theological opinion varied and even practice was not completely uniform.
Up to the middle of the 19th century, divorce, with the consequent
freedom to marry again, was available only to the rich and influential
few by Act of Parliament. In 1857, when matrimonial matters were
transferred from ecclesiastical to civil jurisdiction, divorce on
grounds of adultery was legalised. Although clergy were given the right
to refuse to solemnize the marriage of a divorced person in the lifetime
of a former partner, the Church of England as a whole came to accept de
facto the new state of affairs: marriages after divorce occurred, but
the church refused to give official approval to their solemnization.

66. As Anglican Provinces were
inaugurated outside England, each had to formulate its own pastoral
marriage discipline in the light of local civil law and marriage
customs. In an attempt to secure a coherent policy among the provinces,
the Lambeth Conference of 1888 re-affirmed the life-long intention of
the marriage covenant, but recognized that some marriages dissolved by
the state had in fact ceased to exist. It left open the question whether
or not the innocent party was free to enter a second marriage. Since
then, theological opinion has varied. Some Anglicans have continued to
hold the traditional view of indissolubility. Others have argued that,
once the married relationship has been destroyed beyond repair, the
marriage itself is as if dead, the vows have been frustrated and the
bond has been broken. The Lambeth Conference of 1978 re-affirmed the
first-order principle of life-long union, but it also acknowledged a
responsibility for those for whom no course absolutely consonant with
the first-order principle of marriage as a life-long union may be
available (Resolution 34). Subsequent practice has varied. Different
provinces of the Anglican Communion have devised different marriage
disciplines. Among some of them permission is granted, on carefully
considered pastoral grounds, for a marriage after divorce to be
solemnized in church, although even in these cases practice varies
concerning the precise form the complete service takes. In other cases,
after a civil ceremony, a service of prayer and dedication may be
offered instead. The practical decision normally lies with the bishop
and the bishop's advisers.

b) The Roman Catholic Church

67. In the period following the
breach of communion, the Roman Catholic Church continued to uphold the
doctrine of indissolubility re-affirmed at Trent. At the same time it
developed a complex system of jurisprudence and discipline to meet its
diverse practical and pastoral needs and to provide a supportive role
for those whose faith was threatened by a destructive marital
relationship.

68. A distinction is made
between marriages that are sacraments — those in which both partners are
baptized — and marriages that are not sacraments natural marriages —
those in which one or both partners are unbaptized. In Roman Catholic
teaching both forms of marriage are in principle indissoluble. A
sacramental marriage which has been duly consummated cannot be dissolved
by any human power, civil or ecclesiastical. Where such a marriage,
however, has not been consummated, it can be dissolved. On the other
hand, it has come to be accepted that a non-sacramental marriage,
whether consummated or not, can in certain cases be dissolved.

69. The history of these matters
is long and complex. In his first letter to the Corinthians St Paul
deals with the case of a married couple, one of whom is a believer, the
other a non-believer. If the non-believer refuses to stay with the
believer, then, he says, the brother or sister is not bound (1 Cor
7:15; cf. 12-15). This was later interpreted in Canon Law to mean that
the partner who had become a Christian was free to leave an unbelieving
spouse who was unwilling to continue married life in peace, and to
marry again There are several references to this Pauline text in the
writings of the early Church Fathers dealing with the dissolution of
marriage. It became part of church legislation in 1199, but was fully
clarified only in the Code of Canon Law of 1917. It is still part of
Roman Catholic practice (cf. CIC Can. 1143).

70. The exercise of the Pauline
privilege is not the only occasion when the power to dissolve a
marriage is invoked. In the course of the missionary expansion of the
Church other situations have prompted similar action. From 1537 Popes
used their powers to dissolve the natural marriages of inhabitants of
Africa and the Indies who wished to convert to the Catholic faith. In
1917 this practice in favor of the faith (or, as it is sometimes
called, the Petrine privilege) was extended to other parts of the
world and applied to similar situations. The privilege of the faith is
still recognised today, and subject to certain conditions, a dissolution
of a non.-sacramental marriage may, by way of exception, be granted on
these grounds by the Holy See.

71. Other elements in Roman
Catholic doctrine and practice have been prompted by particular
practical problems. For example, it was the problem of clandestine
marriages, valid but not proved to be so, that prompted the Council of
Trent to promulgate the decree Tametsi (1563). This required that
marriages be celebrated before the pastor (or another priest delegated
by him or the ordinary) and two or three witnesses. With certain
modifications, this form is still binding, and failure to observe it,
without due dispensation, renders a marriage null and void (cf. CIC,
Can. 1108). A partner to such a union, therefore, is not considered in
Canon Law to be held by a marital bond and is free to contract a valid
marriage. In the case of an intended marriage between a Roman Catholic
and a person who is not a Roman Catholic, the church today often grants
a dispensation from the form, out of respect for the beliefs,
conscience and family ties of the person concerned.

72. Another development in Roman
Catholic jurisprudence concerns the practice of annulment, that is, the
declaration of the fact that a true marriage never existed. The marriage
contract requires full and free consent. If this is lacking, there can
be no marriage. It has always been recognized that there can be no
marriage if a person is forced to enter it against his or her own will.
More recent reflection has analyzed in greater depth the nature of
consent. It is now recognized that there may be serious psychological as
well as physical defects. If such defects can be demonstrated to have
existed when verbal consent was exchanged, it can be declared, according
to Roman Catholic teaching, that there was never a marriage at all (cf.
CIC, Can. 1095). Serious defect is also present if, at the time of
exchanging consent, there is a deliberate rejection of some element
essential to marriage (cf. CIC, Can. 1056; 1101, § 2).

c) The Situation Today

73. Clearly there are
differences of discipline and pastoral practice between Anglicans and
Roman Catholics. Some of the factors in our traditions are the result of
responses to contingent historical circumstances: for example, the Roman
Catholic Church's requirement of the form for valid marriage. However,
other elements have deeper roots. When we explore our differences it is
to these, in particular, that we must direct our attention. Before doing
so, however, it is important to note that both Communions make provision
for marital separation, without excluding the persons concerned, even
after civil divorce, from the eucharist.

74. In accord with the western
tradition, Anglicans and Roman Catholics believe that the ministers of
the marriage are the man and woman themselves, who bring the marriage
into being by making a solemn vow and promise of life-long fidelity to
each other. Anglicans and Roman Catholics both regard this vow as solemn
and binding. Anglicans and Roman Catholics both believe that marriage
points to the love of Christ, who bound himself in an irrevocable
covenant to his Church, and that therefore marriage is in principle
indissoluble. Roman Catholics go on to affirm that the unbreakable bond
between Christ and his Church, signified in the union of two baptized
persons, in its turn strengthens the marriage bond between husband and
wife and renders it absolutely unbreakable, except by death. Other
marriages can, in exceptional circumstances, be dissolved. Anglicans, on
the other hand, do not make an absolute distinction between marriages of
the baptized and other marriages, regarding all marriages as in some
sense sacramental. Some Anglicans hold that all marriages are therefore
indissoluble. Others, while holding that all marriages are indeed
sacramental and are in principle indissoluble, are not persuaded that
the marriage bond, even in the case of marriage of the baptized, can
never in fact be dissolved.

75. Roman Catholic teaching
that, when a sacramental marriage has been consummated, the covenant is
irrevocable, is grounded in its understanding of sacramentality, as
already outlined. Further, its firm legal framework is judged to be the
best protection for the institution of marriage, and thus best to serve
the common good of the community, which itself redounds to the true good
of the persons concerned. Thus Roman Catholic teaching and law uphold
the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, even when the human
relationship of love and trust has ceased to exist and there is no
practical possibility of recreating it. The Anglican position, though
equally concerned with the sacramentality of marriage and the common
good of the community, does not necessarily understand these in the same
way. Some Anglicans attend more closely to the actual character of the
relationship between husband and wife. Where a relationship of mutual
love and trust has clearly ceased to exist, and there is no practical
possibility of remaking it, the bond itself, they argue, has also ceased
to exist. When the past has been forgiven and healed, a new covenant and
bond may in good faith be made.

76. Our reflections have brought
to the fore an issue of considerable importance. What is the right
balance between regard for the person and regard for the institution?
The answer must be found within the context of our theology of communion
and our understanding of the common good. For the reasons which have
been explained, in the Roman Catholic Church the institution of marriage
has enjoyed the favor of the law. Marriages are presumed to be valid
unless the contrary case can be clearly established. Since Vatican II
renewed emphasis has been placed upon the rights and welfare of the
individual person, but tensions still remain. A similar tension is felt
by Anglicans, although pastoral concern has sometimes inclined them to
give priority to the welfare of the individual person over the claims of
the institution. History has shown how difficult it is to achieve the
right balance.

77. Our shared reflections have
made us see more clearly that Anglicans and Roman Catholics are at one
in their commitment to following the teaching of Christ on marriage; at
one in their understanding of the nature and meaning of marriage; and at
one in their concern to reach out to those who suffer as a result of the
breakdown of marriage. We agree that marriage is sacramental, although
we do not fully agree on how, and this affects our sacramental
discipline. Thus, Roman Catholics recognize a special kind of
sacramentality in a marriage between baptized persons, which they do not
see in other marriages. Anglicans, on the other hand, recognize a
sacramentality in all valid marriages. On the level of law and policy,
neither the Roman Catholic nor the Anglican practice regarding divorce
is free from real or apparent anomalies and ambiguities. While,
therefore, there are differences between us concerning marriage after
divorce, to isolate those differences from this context of far-reaching
agreement and to make them into an insuperable barrier would be a
serious and sorry misrepresentation of the true situation.

4. Contraception

78. Both our traditions agree
that procreation is one of the divinely intended goods of the
institution of marriage. A deliberate decision, therefore, without
justifiable reason, to exclude procreation from a marriage is a
rejection of this good and a contradiction of the nature of marriage
itself. On this also we agree. We are likewise at one in opposing what
has been called a contraceptive mentality, that is, a selfish
preference for immediate satisfaction over the more demanding good of
having and raising a family.

79. Both Roman Catholics and
Anglicans agree, too, that God calls married couples to responsible
parenthood. This refers to a range of moral concerns, which begins with
the decision to accept parenthood and goes on to include the nurture,
education, support and guidance of children. Decisions about the size of
a family raise many questions for both Anglicans and Roman Catholics.
Broader questions concerning the pressure of population, poverty, the
social and ecological environment, as well as more directly personal
questions concerning the couple's material, physical and psychological
resources, may arise. Situations exist in which a couple would be
morally justified in avoiding bringing children into being. Indeed,
there are some circumstances in which it would be morally irresponsible
to do so. On this our two Communions are also agreed. We are not agreed,
however, on the methods by which this responsibility may be exercised.

80. The disagreement may be
summed up as follows. Anglicans understand the good of procreation to be a
norm governing the married relationship as a whole. Roman Catholic teaching,
on the other hand, requires that each and every act of intercourse should be
open to procreation (cf. Humanae Vitae, 11). This difference of
understanding received official expression in 1930. Before this, both
churches would have counseled abstinence for couples who had a justifiable
reason to avoid conception. The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops,
however, resolved in 1930 that where there is a clearly felt moral
obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound
reason for avoiding complete abstinence... other methods may be used. The
encyclical of Pope Pius XI (Casti Connubii, 1930), which was intended among
other things as a response to the Lambeth resolution, renewed the
traditional Roman Catholic position. In 1968 the teaching was further
developed and clarified in Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae. This
was itself subjected to adverse criticism by the Lambeth Conference later
the same year. The Roman Catholic position has been frequently reaffirmed
since: for example, in the documents Familiaris Consortio 1981, and
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992. This teaching belongs to the ordinary magisterium calling for religious assent.

81. The immediate point at issue in
this controversy would seem to concern the moral integrity of the act of
marital intercourse. Both our traditions agree that this involves the two
basic goods of marriage, loving union and procreation. Moral integrity
requires that husband and wife respect both these goods together. For
Anglicans, it is sufficient that this respect should characterize the
married relationship as a whole; whereas for Roman Catholics, it must
characterize each act of sexual intercourse. Anglicans understand the moral
principle to be that procreation should not arbitrarily be excluded from the
continuing relationship; whereas Roman Catholics hold that there is an
unbreakable connexion, willed by God, between the two goods of marriage
and the corresponding meanings of marital intercourse, and that therefore
they may not be sundered by any direct and deliberate act (cf. Humanae
Vitae, 12).

82. The Roman Catholic doctrine is
not simply an authoritative statement of the nature of the integrity of the
marital act. The whole teaching on human love and sexuality, continued and
developed in Humanae
Vitae, must be taken into account when considering the
Roman Catholic position on this issue. The definition of integrity is
founded upon a number of considerations: a way of understanding human
persons; the meaning of marital love; the unique dignity of an act which can
engender new life; the relationship between human fruitfulness and divine
creativity; the special vocation of the married couple; and the requirements
of the virtue of marital chastity. Anglicans accept all of these
considerations as relevant to determining the integrity of the marital
relationship and act. Thus they share the same spectrum of moral and
theological considerations. However, they do not accept the arguments Roman
Catholics derive from them, nor the conclusions they draw from them
regarding the morality of contraception.

5. Other Issues

83. So far in this section we have
argued that our disagreements in the areas of marriage, procreation and
contraception, areas in which our two Communions have made official but
conflicting pronouncements, are on the level of derived conclusions rather
than fundamental values. However, as we observed earlier, there are other
important issues in the area of sexuality where no official disagreement has
been expressed between our two Communions, but where disagreement is
nonetheless perceived to exist. Although Anglicans and Roman Catholics may
often achieve a common mind and witness on many issues of peace and social
justice, nevertheless, it is said, their teaching is irreconcilable on such
matters as abortion and homosexual relations. What is more, there are other
difficult and potentially divisive issues in the offing, as scientific and
technological expertise develops the unprecedented power to manipulate the
basic material, not only of the environment, but also of human life itself.

84. This is not the time or place to
discuss such further issues in detail. However, confining ourselves to the
two issues of abortion and homosexual relations, we would argue that, in
these instances too, the disagreements between us are not on the level of
fundamental moral values, but on their implementation in practical
judgments.

85. Anglicans have no agreed
teaching concerning the precise moment from which the new human life
developing in the womb is to be given the full protection due to a human
person. Only some Anglicans insist that in all circumstances, and without
exception, such protection must extend back to the time of conception. Roman
Catholic teaching, on the other hand, is that the human embryo must be
treated as a human person from the moment of conception (cf. Donum Vitae,
1987 and
Declaration on Procured Abortion 1974). Difference of teaching on
this matter cannot but give rise to difference of judgment on what is
morally permissible when a tragic conflict occurs between the rights of the
mother and the rights of the fetus. Roman Catholic teaching rejects all
direct abortion. Among Anglicans the view is to be found that in certain
cases direct abortion is morally justifiable. Anglicans and Roman Catholics,
however, are at one in their recognition of the sanctity, and right to life,
of all human persons, and they share an abhorrence of the growing practice
in many countries of abortion on grounds of mere convenience. This agreement
on fundamentals is reflected both in pronouncements of bishops and in
official documents issued by both Communions (cf.
Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 1992, 2270, and Lambeth Conference Report, 1930, 16 & 1978, 10).

86. We cannot enter here more fully
into this debate, and we do not wish to underestimate the consequences of
our disagreement. We wish, however, to affirm once again that Anglicans and
Roman Catholics share the same fundamental teaching concerning the mystery
of human life and the sanctity of the human person. They also share the same
sense of awe and humility in making practical judgments in this area of
profound moral complexity. Their differences arise in the way in which they
develop and apply fundamental moral teaching. What we have said earlier
about our different formulations of the moral law is here relevant (see
para. 52). For Roman Catholics, the rejection of abortion is an example of
an absolute prohibition. For Anglicans, however, such an absolute and
categorical prohibition would not be typical of their moral reasoning. That
is why it is important to set such differences in context. Only then shall
we be able to assess their wider implications.

87. In the matter of homosexual
relationships a similar situation obtains. Both our Communions affirm the
importance and significance of human friendship and affection among men and
women, whether married or single. Both affirm that all persons, including
those of homosexual orientation, are made in the divine image and share the
full dignity of human creatureliness. Both affirm that a faithful and
lifelong marriage between a man and a woman provides the normative context
for a fully sexual relationship. Both appeal to Scripture and the natural
order as the sources of their teaching on this issue. Both reject,
therefore, the claim, sometimes made that homosexual relationships and
married relationships are morally equivalent, and equally capable of
expressing the right ordering and use of the sexual drive. Such ordering and
use, we believe, are an essential aspect of life in Christ. Here again our
different approaches to the formulation of law are relevant (cf. § 52).
Roman Catholic teaching holds that homosexual activity is intrinsically
disordered, and concludes that it is always objectively wrong. This affects
the kind of pastoral advice that is given to homosexual persons. Anglicans
could agree that such activity is disordered; but there may well be
differences among them in the consequent moral and pastoral advice they
would think it right to offer to those seeking their counsel and direction.

88. Our two Communions have in the
past developed their moral teaching and practical and pastoral disciplines
in isolation from each other. The differences that have arisen between them
are serious, but careful study and consideration has shown us that they are
not fundamental. The urgency of the times and the perplexity of the human
condition demand that they now do all they can to come together to provide a
common witness and guidance for the well-being of humankind and the good of
the whole creation.

F) TOWARDS SHARED WITNESS

89. We have already seen how
divergence between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on matters of practice and
official moral teaching has been aggravated, if not caused, by the historic
breach of communion and the consequent breakdown in communication.
Separation has led to estrangement, and estrangement has fostered
misperception, misunderstanding and suspicion. Only in recent times has this
process been reversed and the first determined steps taken along the way to
renewed and full communion.

90. The theme of communion
illumines, we believe, not only the reality of the Church as a worshiping
community, but also the form and fullness of Christian life in the world.
Indeed, since the Church is called in Christ to be a sign and sacrament of a
renewed humanity, it also illumines the nature and destiny of human life as
such. As ARCIC has affirmed in
Church as Communion:

To explore the meaning of communion
is not only to speak of the church but also to address the world at the
heart of its deepest need, for human beings long for true community in
freedom, justice and peace and for respect of human dignity (§ 3).

In this final section, therefore, we
return once again to the theme of communion and consider the light it sheds
both on the moral order and on the Church's moral response.

1. Communion and the moral order

91. Communion, we have argued, is a
constitutive characteristic of a fully human life, signifying a
relationship based on participation in a shared reality (cf.
Church as
Communion, § 12). From this perspective the moral dimension of human life is
itself perceived to be fundamentally relational, determined both by the
nature of the reality in which it participates and by the form appropriate
to such participation.

92. Participation of human beings in
the life of God, in whom they live and move and have their being (cf. Acts
17:28), is grounded in their creation in God's image (cf.
Church as
Communion, 6). The fundamental relationship in which they stand, therefore,
is their relationship to God, Creator and goal of all that is, seen and
unseen. Created and sustained in this relationship, they are drawn towards
God's absolute goodness, which they experience as both gift and call. Moral
responsibility is a gift of divine grace; the moral imperative is an
expression of divine love. When Jesus bids his disciples before all else to
seek the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 6:33), he tells them also that they are to
reflect in their own lives the perfection which belongs to the divine life
(cf. Mt 5:48). This call to perfection echoes the Lord's call to the
people of Israel to participate in his holiness (cf. Lev 19:2). As such, it
does not ignore human fragility, failure and sin; but it does lay bare the
full dimensions of a response that reflects the height and breadth and depth
of the divine righteousness and love (cf. Rm 8:1-4).

93. Human beings are not purely
spiritual beings; they are fashioned out of the dust (cf. Gen 2:7). Created
in the image of God, they are shaped by nature and culture, and participate
in both the glory and the shame of the human story. Their responsibility to
God issues in a responsibility for God's world, and their transformation
into the likeness of God embraces their relationships both to the natural
world and to one another. Hence no arbitrary boundaries may be set between
the good of the individual, the common good of humanity, and the good of the
whole created order. The context of the truly human life is the universal
and all-embracing rule of God.

94. The world in which human beings
participate is a changing world. Science and technology have given them the
power, to a degree unforeseen in earlier centuries, to impress their own
designs on the natural environment, by adapting the environment to their own
needs, by exploiting it and even by destroying it. However, there are
ultimate limits to what is possible. Nature is not infinitely malleable.
Moreover, not everything that is humanly possible is humanly desirable, or
morally right. In many situations, what is sometimes called progress is, as
a consequence of human ignorance and arrogance, degrading and destructive.
The moral task is to discern how fundamental and eternal values may be
expressed and embodied in a world that is subject to continuing change.

95. The world in which human beings
participate is not only a changing world; it is also a broken and imperfect
world. It is subject to futility and sin, and stands under the judgment of
God. Its human structures are distorted by violence and greed. Inevitably,
conflicts of value and clashes of interest arise, and situations occur in
which the requirements of the moral order are uncertain. Law is enacted and
enforced to preserve order and to protect and serve the common good.
Admittedly, it can perpetuate inequalities of wealth and power, but its true
end is to ensure justice and peace. At a deeper level, the moral order looks
for its fulfilment to a renewal of personal freedom and dignity within a
forgiving, healing and caring community.

2. Communion and the Church

96.Life in Christ is a life of
communion, to be manifested for the salvation of the world and for the
glorification of God the Father. In the fellowship of the Holy Spirit the
Church participates in the Son's loving and obedient response to the Father.
But even if, in the resurrection of Christ, the new world has already begun,
the end is not yet. So the Church continues to pray and prepare for the day
when Christ will deliver the kingdom to the Father (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28) and
God will be all in all. In the course of history Anglicans and Roman
Catholics have disagreed on certain specific matters of moral teaching and
practice, but they continue to hold to the same vision of human nature and
destiny fulfilled in Christ. Furthermore, their deep desire to find an
honest and faithful resolution of their disagreements is itself evidence of
a continuing communion at a more profound level than that on which
disagreement has occurred.

97. The Church as communion reflects
the communion of the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 17,
20-22; Jn 14:16f; 2 Cor 13:13), and anticipates the fullness of communion in
the kingdom of God. Consequently, communion means that members of the Church
share a responsibility for discerning the action of the Spirit in the
contemporary world, for shaping a truly human response, and for resolving
the ensuing moral perplexities with integrity and fidelity to the Gospel.
Within this shared responsibility, those who exercise the office of pastor
and teacher have the special task of equipping the Church and its members
for life in the world, and for guiding and confirming their free and
faithful response to the Gospel. The exercise of this authority will itself
bear the marks of communion, in so far as a sustained attentiveness to the
experience and reflection of the faithful becomes part of the process of
making an informed and authoritative judgment. One such example of this
understanding of the interaction of communion and authority, we suggest, is
the careful and sustained process of listening and public consultation which
has preceded the publication of some of the pastoral letters of Bishops'
Conferences of the Roman Catholic Church in different parts of the world.

98. Communion also means that, where
there has been a failure to meet the claims of the moral order to which the
Church bears witness, there will be a determined attempt to restore the
sinner to the life of grace in the community, thereby allowing the gospel of
forgiveness to be proclaimed even to the greatest of sinners. Anglicans and
Roman Catholics share the conviction that God's righteousness and God's love
and mercy are inseparable (cf.
Salvation and the Church, 17 and 18), and
both Communions continue to exercise a ministry of healing, forgiveness and
reconciliation.

3. Towards moral integrity and full communion

99. Anglicans and Roman Catholics
share a deep desire, not only for full communion, but also for a resolution
of the disagreement that exists between them on certain specific moral
issues. The two are related. On the one hand, seeking a resolution of our
disagreements is part of the process of growing together towards full
communion. On the other hand, only as closer communion leads to deeper
understanding and trust can we hope for a resolution of our disagreements.

100. In order to make an informed
and faithful response to the moral perplexities facing humanity today,
Christians must promote a global and ecumenical perception of fundamental
human relationships and values. Our common vision of humanity in Christ
places before us this responsibility, while at the same time requiring us to
develop a greater sensitivity to the different experiences, insights and
approaches that are appropriate to different cultures and contexts. The
separation that still exists between our two Communions is a serious
obstacle to the Church's mission and a darkening of the moral wisdom it may
hope to share with the world.

101. Our work together within this
Commission has shown us that the discernment of the precise nature of the
moral agreement and disagreement between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is
not always an easy task. One problem we faced was the fact that we often
found ourselves comparing the variety of moral judgments present and
permissible among Anglicans with the official, authoritative teachings of
the Roman Catholic Church. This feature of our discussions was inevitable,
given the differences between our two Communions in the way they understand
and exercise authority. Working together, however, has convinced us that the
disagreements on moral matters, which at present exist between us, need not
constitute an insuperable barrier to progress towards fuller communion.
Painful and perplexing as they are, they do not reveal a fundamental
divergence in our understanding of the moral implications of the Gospel.

102. Continuing study is needed of
the differences between us, real or apparent, especially in our
understanding and use of the notion of law. A clearer understanding is
required of the relation of the concept of law to the concepts of moral
order and the common good, and the relation of all these concepts to the
vision of human happiness and fulfilment as persons-in-community that we
have been given in and through Jesus Christ. However, Anglicans and Roman
Catholics do not talk to each other as moral strangers. They both appeal to
a shared tradition, and they recognize the same Scriptures as normative of
that tradition. They both respect the role of reason in moral discernment.
They both give due place to the classic virtue of prudence. We are
convinced, therefore, that further exchange between our two traditions on
moral questions will serve both the cause of Christian unity and the good of
that larger society of which we are all part.

103. We end our document with a
specific practical recommendation. We propose that steps should be taken to
establish further instruments of cooperation between our two Communions at
all levels of church life (especially national and regional), to engage with
the serious moral issues confronting humanity today. In view of our common
approach to moral reflection, and in the light of the agreements we have
already discovered to exist between us, we believe that bilateral
discussions between Anglicans and Roman Catholics would be especially
valuable.

104. We make this proposal for the
following reasons:

— Working together on moral issues
would be a practical way of expressing the communion we already enjoy, of
moving towards full communion, and of understanding more clearly what it
entails; without such collaboration we run the risk of increasing
divergence.

— Moving towards shared witness
would contribute significantly to the mission of the Church and allow the
light of the Gospel to shine more fully upon the moral perplexities of human
existence in today's world.

— Having a shared vision of a
humanity created in the image of God, we share a common responsibility to
challenge society in places where that image is being marred or defaced.

105. We do not underestimate the difficulties that such collaboration would
involve. Nevertheless, we dare not continue along our separated ways. Our
working and witnessing together to the world is in itself a form of
communion. Such deepening communion will enable us to handle our remaining
disagreements in a faithful and more creative way. He who calls you is
faithful, and he will do it (1 Thes 5:24).